Allowed

Geetla Raji Reddy, v. the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy

Telangana HC23 Dec 2011WP/15511/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer delay claims under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to civil court. Relief conditioned on waiver of interest/solatium for period between award and writ filing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to refer applications under Section 18 of the Act to competent civil court within 8 weeks, subject to waiver of interest/solatium for delay caused.

Geetla Raji Reddy, Vs the Land Acquisition Officer and… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15511 of 2006

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus, directing the respondent–Land Acquisition Officer, to refer the applications of petitioners filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), to the Civil Court, with regard to their acquired properties i.e. one gunta of land with a cement tin shed and one drinking water well in Survey No.382-C of the 1^st petitioner, and one gunta of land with a cement tin shed in Survey No.330 of the 2^nd petitioner, situated at Jallaram Village of Kamanpur Mandal in Karimnagar District.

¶4

It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid lands, along with the structures therein, were acquired on the requisition of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. It is their further case that in the land acquisition proceedings initiated with regard to the aforesaid properties, the respondent passed award on 12.07.1994 in Award No.4/1994, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per acre with additional amount for the structures therein. It is stated that as they were not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them, they have filed applications within time i.e. on 22.08.1994, before the respondent, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, but the same were not referred to the civil Court. It is stated that earlier, some

¶5

similarly placed persons have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.28265 of 1996, which was allowed with a direction to the respondent therein to refer the applications of such persons filed under Section 18 of the Act, to the civil Court. Consequent to such reference, the reference Court has increased the compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per acre. In addition to the same, there is enhancement of compensation with regard to the structures by one time more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that though they filed applications within the period of limitation as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, the respondent has not taken any action to refer their claims to the civil Court.

¶6

Counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent. In the counter, while referring to the claims of some others, who are covered by the same award and who have approached this Court earlier in Writ Petition No.28265 of 1996, it is stated that so far as the petitioners are concerned, Award No.4/94 was passed on 12.07.1994 and the 1^st petitioner has received compensation of Rs.1,16,048/- for the acquired land and structures and also drinking water well in Survey No.382-C of Jallaram Village, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar district and the 2^nd petitioner has received compensation of Rs.69,301/-

¶7

for the acquired land and structures in Survey No.330 of Jallaram Village. It is further stated that the petitioners were served with notices under Section 12(2) of the Act on 13.07.1994, and thereafter, the 1^st petitioner has filed application under Section 18 of the Act on 30.08.1994, whereas the 2^nd petitioner has filed such application on 24.08.1994.

¶8

From the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is clear that the petitioners were not present at the time of passing of the award, as such, they are entitled to make applications within two (2) months from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is also clear that after receipt of such notices on 13.07.1994, both the petitioners have filed applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, within the stipulated time. In that view of the matter, there appears no reason at all for not referring the applications of petitioners to the civil Court. At the same time, it is to be noticed that though the award was passed on 12.07.1994, even after filing the applications seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners did not approach this Court immediately. It appears, only after disposal of Writ Petition No.28265 of 1996, in which, this Court ordered the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the applications of petitioners therein, who are covered by the same award, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. It is also to be noticed that the

¶9

petitioners have filed a memo along with their affidavits, expressing their readiness to forego interest, solatium and additional amount till the date of filing this Writ Petition.

¶10

As much as the matters relating to other claimants covered by the same award were referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, and even as per the averments made in the counter-affidavit, the petitioners herein have filed applications under Section 18 of the Act within the stipulated time and in view of the fact that they have also filed a memo enclosing their affidavits expressing their readiness to forego interest, solatium and additional amount till the date of filing this Writ Petition, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to refer the applications of petitioners filed under Section 18 of the Act, to competent civil Court, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that even if the reference Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation, they are not entitled for any interest, additional amount and solatium thereon from the date of award till the date of filing the Writ Petition i.e. from 12.07.1994 to 24.07.2006.

¶11

The Writ Petition is allowed subject to the above directions. No order as to costs.

¶12

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶13

23^rd December 2011.

¶14

Kvni/ajr

Geetla Raji Reddy, v. the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetla Raji Reddy, v. the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gundagani Raghavaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department

B.Chandra Obul Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

M/s Maruti Transports Vs Registering Authority and Secretary

Tamina Bivi, Vs Solomon Arogyaraj

A. Krishnaiah Vs Solomon Arogyaraj

M.Krishna Murthy Vs The Joint Collector, Khammam